Asks Wintery Knight: Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 23, 2018

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is the PR / spin definition of theistic evolution:

Evolutionary creation is “the view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.” This view, also called theistic evolution, has been around since the late nineteenth century, and BioLogos promotes it today in a variety of religious and educational settings.

And here is the no-spin definition of theistic evolution:

As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains it, the central issue dividing Bio-Logos writers from intelligent design theorists is BioLogos’s commitment to methodological naturalism (MN), which is not a scientific theory or empirical finding, but an arbitrary rule excluding non-material causation from the outset. “Unfortunately,” Meyer writes, methodological naturalism is a demanding doctrine. The rule does not say “try finding a materialistic cause but keep intelligent design in the mix of live possibilities, in light of what the evidence might show.” Rather, MN tells you that you simply must posit a material or physical cause, whatever the evidence.

What this means, according to BioLogos’s own epistemology, is that God is objectively undiscoverable and unknowable—a tenet that sits squarely at odds with Christian orthodoxy, which has for centuries held that God is clearly discernible in the natural world (e.g., Romans 1:20).

…

And for the record, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the standard Big Bang cosmology, and a 4.5 billion year Earth. My problem with evolution is not Bible-based, it’s science-based. If the science shows the need for intelligent causes, and I think it does, then I think that the naturalists need to adjust their assumptions and pre-suppositions to match the evidence. We have blog posts and computer science code, that’s evidence for a programmer. We have DNA and proteins and sudden origin of body plans, that’s evidence for a programmer, too. More.

We hope no one deludes himself that, in a contest of this type, orthodoxy is going to prevail.

File under: Church closers.

See also: Tyler O’Neil: Three views on origins supported by the text of the Bible

and

Faith and Science — the Confused View of the United Methodist Church

Comments

The question is “Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?” This question is ambiguous because of the different meanings people attach to the adjective "Darwinian". Among IDists and others, Darwinian has come to mean a metaphysical interpretation of evolution that is atheistic and materialistic. Of course, they can find quotes from notable advocates for evolution that do see evolution from an atheistic and materialistic perspective. But others see evolution from a different metaphysical perspective, so just quoting the materialists is in itself not an argument. Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution are commonly called theistic evolutionists (TEs), although that term is also misleading and open to different interpretations. Most importantly, I think that various descriptions of what TE means, especially among people who object to it, are not accurate, or at least don't accurately express the meaning of TE held by knowledgeable TEs that I know. Drawing on a recent post in a previous thread, let me explain. =========== TE is not just about evolution: that is why the term is misleading. TE is a much broader position about God's presence in the world. It is the theological belief that everything, from the daily events and overall course of our personals lives to the largest-scale history of the universe, is caused and upheld by God's presence in all the natural events that we see around us. Many a Christian has invoked this belief when they have avoided a catastrophic event (perhaps missed a plane that later crashed), and stated that it was God's will, and part of God's plan for them, that they miss that plane and live rather than catch the plane and die. And yet, if we examine the course of events leading up to missing the plane (perhaps an alarm clock broke, or a wreck disrupted traffic), we as human beings would see nothing but naturally-caused events. We do not, and cannot, see the world as God sees it. We are embedded in time and space, with abilities to see the world limited by our five senses and their extensions via various instruments. The ways in which an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God manifests his will comprehensively and simultaneously on all events at each moments is vastly beyond our comprehension, which is limited to experiencing causally connected events in time and space. Furthermore, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. Again, because of the limitations of our human experience, we see contingency in which events that have no discernable causal connection to us nevertheless have major consequences in the world, such as the missed plane mentioned above. This is a theological perspective that applies to all og our understanding of the natural world. It is not a special consideration about evolution, but rather a perspective about evolution flowing from a broader understanding about all events in the natural world. To the TE, what happens via natural causes, every single moment, is a manifestation of God's presence. Just because something has a natural cause, and perhaps includes elements that appear as chance to us, doesn't mean that God is not involved. It's not that the world isn't designed: it's that there is no distinction separating the design of some special things from the rest of the world's events. This is my understanding of TE. ========= And at the same thread, I wrote,
He [Plantinga]does discuss the possibility that an event might appear unguided to us but still be guided by God. There’s no contradiction in that case because the event isn’t really unguided. Looking unguided and being unguided are two different properties…
Yes, this is the TE position I am describing. Everything is guided, because the presence of God's will is omnipresent. We, however, see with human eyes, and so we see the world flowing from one moment to another according to natural processes, which necessarily includes contingent events that we see as "chance" in respect to their consequences. We can't see the continual and pervasive guidance of God in an empirical way, although the TE accepts that that guidance is there as a matter of faith. Yes, there are prominent people like Mayr who are materialists. They think they are right when they describe evolution from a materialistic perspective, but the TE perspective I am describing would say they are confusing their metaphysical position, which can't be proven, with our more limited human perspective. Unfortunately, people on both sides of TE's have come to use "Darwinism" to mean a materialistic view, which leaves TE's in the middle: they don't accept the materialistic metaphysics, but they don't accept the various positions that state or imply that God has had to act in special ways in order to bring about the long history of life as we see it. So IDists reject TE and throw them in with the materialists, which misunderstands TE, as explained above. The issues are really theological: different (and unprovable) ideas about the nature of God and how his presence is manifested in the world.
========== Some additional thoughts. I think people can be, and TEs are, adherents to methodological naturalism (MN) without being adherents of philosophical natural (PN). MN does not equal PN. Obviously all PNs endorse MN, but not all MN's must be, either directly or indirectly, PNs. MN is a considered decision to have one field of knowledge, science, limited in the types of questions it can investigate and the kind of explanations it will consider. It is not mandated by any particular metaphysics, but is recognized as a practically successful limitation that helps separate science from other types of knowledge and belief. It recognizes that many topics are outside the reach of science, including metaphysical interpretations about natural causation. So TEs can endorse and work within the limits of MN while doing science, or taking a naturalistic view of the world in more informal settings, and at the same time embrace their religious views about the presence of God and the pervasive manifestation of his will. Things have happened as they have because that is how God willed them to happen, manifesting that will through the continual flow of what appear to us as natural events following natural laws and processes. Please note: I know many of you reject many of the statements have made here. My main interest is in perhaps more accurately trying to describe what the TE position is. TEs hold a valid Christian perspective: they are not sell-outs to materialism. The arguments between TEs and Christian IDists are theological, within Christianity, not a matter of arguing who is or is not a CHristian. My 2 cents.jdk_{April 25, 2018
April
04
Apr
25
25
2018
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Johnnyb
For the record, I do believe that Darwinism is compatible in general with theism (though it fits more comfortably with deism), but, while many Christians accept it, I don’t think it logically mixes well with Christianity specifically.
Granting evolution for the sake of argument, how do you reconcile undirected Darwinian evolution with a theistic model that requires direction?StephenB_{April 25, 2018
April
04
Apr
25
25
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Allan - Regarding TE, the question as posed was whether someone can believe in God and *Darwinism*. The answer that TEs are within ID is true but misleading. If by TE you mean Darwinists, then no, TE is not within ID. If by TE you mean people who accept common descent but reject RM+NS as the operative agent for change, then yes, but that has nothing to do with this post, which is about whether it is compatible with Darwinism. For the record, I do believe that Darwinism is compatible in general with theism (though it fits more comfortably with deism), but, while many Christians accept it, I don't think it logically mixes well with Christianity specifically.johnnyb_{April 24, 2018
April
04
Apr
24
24
2018
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Allan:
After all, TE is within the ID tent.
You would think so, however TE's deny that we can detect intelligent design so that puts them on the outside.ET_{April 24, 2018
April
04
Apr
24
24
2018
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

“Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?” Only if you deny the obvious:
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1 … The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2 … Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3 As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4 ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5
Thank you for your honesty Will Provine. 1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 † 2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 † 3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 † 4- No Free Will (1999) p.123 5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.ET_{April 24, 2018
April
04
Apr
24
24
2018
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

scuzzaman, you write,
Evolution requires aeons of death, disease and dismemberment. The TE-ers Christian God calls this “very good” and then goes on to lie about how and why death came into the world.
This is usually a young-earth position. Do you feel the same way about old earth creationists or old earth ID supporters?jdk_{April 24, 2018
April
04
Apr
24
24
2018
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

I have a very jaundiced view of TE so sensitive readers should not read any further. I am convinced that: 1. There is no possible reconciliation between the Christian God and Evolution. 2. People who try to reconcile them merely demonstrate that they understand neither. Evolution requires aeons of death, disease and dismemberment. The TE-ers Christian God calls this "very good" and then goes on to lie about how and why death came into the world. I will go further and say that the craving for the intellectual respect of one's enemies is a fatal flaw. Proponents of Theistic Evolution are viewed with suspicion (at best, more usually as heretics) by their Christian fellows, and with derision by their evolutionist fellows. And rightly so, because they've subjugated their intellect and principles to their desire for in-group acceptance, a flaw that renders them fundamentally unreliable as allies or worshippers.ScuzzaMan_{April 24, 2018
April
04
Apr
24
24
2018
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

WK cites Stephen Meyer's comments that TE of the Biologos variety requires strict adherence to methodological naturalism (MN). There is nothing about science or scientific discovery that requires MN. MN is little more than full blown philosophical naturalism (PN) in disguise. I've said many times over the years that MN=PN and there is no getting around it. The enforcement of MN in science is arbitrary and not itself based on any actual discoveries in the natural world. It is by definition a philosophical presupposition born from PN. It presupposes that all observations in nature are explainable by natural cause and effect. This is completely arbitrary. If the evidence of nature points in the direction of actual design, then scientists ought to be free to explore that and offer intelligent cause as a viable option. MN arbitrarily tosses that out before investigation even begins. That is NOT science, but philosophy masquerading as science.DonaldM_{April 24, 2018
April
04
Apr
24
24
2018
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Nonlin,
And they fight tooth and nail when someone wants to open their eyes.
Who’s to say that it is their eyes that need opening? After all, TE is within the ID tent. Can we both agree that all sides of an argument have some individuals who make the arguments emotional as opposed to rational?Allan Keith_{April 23, 2018
April
04
Apr
23
23
2018
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith, Just because they can't see how illogical Darwinism is. And they fight tooth and nail when someone wants to open their eyes.Nonlin.org_{April 23, 2018
April
04
Apr
23
23
2018
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

"Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?" Thousands do.Allan Keith_{April 23, 2018
April
04
Apr
23
23
2018
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply